DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, line 2 , the applicant recites “5)”. This appears to be a typo. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 5, line 3, the applicant recites “the holder”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this feature in the claims.
In claim 8, lines 1-2, the applicant recites “the X and Z directions”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this feature in the claims. Furthermore, in claim 8, applicant recites “in the X and Z directions wherein the inserts are of stainless steel”. This phrase is confusing since it is not clear if the applicant means that the inserts are orientated in the x and z directions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatarinov et al. (DE102014104333A1), Bos et al. (US 20230347828), and Kong (US 20200189661).
Regarding claims 1 and 4 , Tatarinov discloses In combination with an electric vehicle having two A-pillars and a cross beam (2) extending transversely between the pillars (page 1, figs 1-4): a support (annotated fig 1) fixed to the cross beam and traversed by a steering column (17) of the vehicle (figs 1-4); two transversely spaced flat brackets (5,6) extending parallel to each other longitudinally forward from the support (figs 1-4), , the brackets each having a straight upper edge (upper edge of 5 and 6) projecting longitudinally forward and downward and formed with a bent-out edge strip (end of 5, 6, figs 1-3) and an angled lower edge (lower edge of 5, 6, fig3) converging longitudinally away from the cross beam toward the upper edge and having a bent-out edge strip (figs 1-36), each bracket having a front end provided with an attachment plate (annotated fig 1) constructed for attachment to a vehicle firewall (annotated fig 1); a plurality of attachment fittings (8) on the upper edges (figs 1-3); and a heads-up-display (18) between the two brackets (figs 1-4) and having transversely projecting attachment tabs above the attachment fittings on the upper edges and constructed to be fastened to the attachment fittings on the upper edges to secure the display below a windshield of the vehicle (page 1-3, figs 1-4).
Tatarinov discloses the use of sheet metals and the use of screw-type coupling (page 2), but is silent regarding the fact that the sheet metal is made of steel and the fact that a rear end formed with an upper hole constructed to receive a fastener securing the respective bracket to the support and the use of wholly steel sheet to form the brackets
Bos teaches the use of fasteners to connect two components of a vehicle console ([0030]) and the use of steel to form the brackets ([0036])
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Tatarinov and Bos before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by Tatarinov to include the fasteners and hole as taught by Bos in order to removably couple components ([0030]) and use steel material as taught by Bos in order to achieve optimal materials properties.
The combination of Tatarinov and Bos is silent regarding the fact that the vehicle is an electric vehicle.
Kong teaches the fact that the vehicle is electric ([0029]).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Tatarinov, Bos and Kong before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by the combination of Tatarinov and Bos to include the electric vehicle taught by Kong in order to reduce carbon emissions.
Regarding claim 2, Tatarinov further discloses that one (6) of the brackets carries only a single one of the attachment fittings (8) (fig 1).
Regarding claim 3, Tatarinov further discloses that the other (5) of the brackets carries only two of the attachment fittings (8) spaced longitudinally apart (fig 1).
Regarding claim 9, Tatarinov further discloses that the brackets are adjustable vertically and horizontally (page 2, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 11, Tatarinov further discloses a respective centering bushing as a tolerance compensation element for a reference bolt mounted to the firewall or end wall of the vehicle (page 2 discloses the use of a compensation sheet).
PNG
media_image1.png
608
615
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANY E AKAKPO whose telephone number is (469)295-9255. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Coy can be reached on (571) 272-5405. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANY E AKAKPO/Examiner, Art Unit 3672
09/10/2025
Prosecution Insights